The Republican Party Must Nominate Mitt Romney. Here's Why:

by Simon Pedenko

August 7, 2006

Beginning in March 2006, and following the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, the media pundits have presented us with a short list of possible candidates who may take a stab at the Republican nomination for President of the United States. The roll-call consists chiefly of John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, George Allen, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Mitt Romney.

Assuming this early slate of candidates remains intact after November, the mainstream media will erect roadblocks and create pitfalls using a gale force of opprobrium that will cut away the dead wood in short order. Public relations spin machines designed to soft soap a candidate's record or personal history have been relegated to tools of the past. This is why we Republicans should be relentless when it comes to vetting our own candidates.

A Hard Look at Our Potential Candidates

The results of the June, 2006 Gallup Poll listed the top three "you would most likely support for the Republican nomination" as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Newt Gingrich, garnering 29%, 24% and 8% respectively. Nearly identical results were obtained in the Cook Political Report, the Diageo/Hotline Poll and the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. One concept can be gleaned from these numbers: the country is either suffering from selective memory or the shortsightedness of name recognition. By way of example, the top three candidates stand tall with Bill Clinton when it comes to past philandering. Why do we bring up these indiscretions? Because the media will soon be serving them up as an example of the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.

The Nixon/Clinton years left us a bitter legacy that begs compromise, so we reluctantly accept flawed characters. It is time for us to extricate our heads from the media quicksand and choose leadership that cannot be divorced from our moral values or we undermine our best hopes for the office of President. The next occupant of the Oval Office cannot be "second best." Now-not a year nor 18 months from now-is the time to choose our next leader, and make certain he is the best choice.

It is not our intention to damage or undermine a candidate's aspirations to the presidency. However, we are determined to remain objective and faithful to the truth regarding a candidate's character and integrity. The information that follows was culled from public record-all big stories in the years between 1995 and 2005.

The "Newt Defense" will rise again to overshadow the excellence of "Winning the Future" by casting gloom over Mr. Speaker's "present." The skeletons in Newt's closet play like a soap opera for those of you who have been living in blissful ignorance. It seems odd (yet not altogether irrelevant) that 1997 was a watershed year for media-driven stories about teachers having illicit relationships with their students (e.g., Letourneau/Fualauu). Yet that was Newt's introduction to the world of complex relationships. Wife number one (his high school teacher) was replaced (while in a hospital recuperating from cancer surgery) with his mistress. Eventually, she became wife #2, and in due course, replaced by his third (known) mistress, the current Mrs. Gingrich. It is unnecessary to expound on sordid details because they will surely be reiterated by the MSM, together with other scandals during his tenure as Speaker of the House.

During his term as Mayor of New York, and prior to 9/11, Rudy Giuliani made no qualms about being seen in public with his mistress (the current Mrs. Giuliani), while his then wife sat (disgraced) in Gracie Mansion. This will undoubtedly be brought to the fore, in addition to the fact the former Mrs. Giuliani had been his mistress prior to their marriage as well. Add these indiscretions to his present business dealings with the Mexican Government, both conservatives (already bogged down with an illegal immigration muddle) and liberals will have a field day.

Following his release after 5-1/2 years as a Viet Nam POW, John McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their children alone during his confinement. The second (and current) Mrs. John McCain was embroiled in a huge controversy over an addiction to drugs illicitly obtained from her own non-profit medical relief organization. Since 2000, a roller-coaster of controversial positions within his own party have unfortunately left this maverick Senator with the label "Republican in Name Only."

To date, none of these men has formally announced his intention to seek the Republican candidacy. So we ask, did the events of 9/11 cloud our memories to the point where all else seems trivial? Liberal pundit Steve Benen wrote in a recent article, "Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history." Hang onto your seats ladies and gentlemen. This trifecta is in for a bumpy ride.

Trailing in this race to the start, are Senators Bill Frist, George Allen, Sam Brownback and Governor Mike Huckabee. The controversies surrounding these men are readily accessible online. Suffice to say, after studying their self-proclaimed comparisons to Ronald Reagan or fair weather allegiance to George Bush, it makes one long for another jar of jelly beans in the Oval Office instead of the imaginable spittoon.

As with any group, there is always one who stands above the fray. In response to the recent Big Dig collapse in Boston, Governor Romney stated, "A new era of reform and accountability at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has begun. Patronage will be replaced by professionalism, and secrecy will be replaced by openness." These potent remarks are what we want to hear from a new leader. We must seek candor for the highest office in the land, particularly since secrecy and lack of openness have consistently plagued the current administration.

The fact Mitt Romney is a Mormon does not negatively influence us. It is trivial compared to the events that are shaping and reshaping our world from minute to minute. Perhaps it will ensure that Republicans retain the high moral ground. However Mr. Romney chooses to express his faith is his, and his family's, private business. We are not scrutinizing his spirituality, only his capacity to become the next President of the United States. There is no time to second-guess. There is no time to play the "maybe" card with any other candidate.

Mr. Romney is pro family, pro life, and pro traditional marriage. He has been married to the same fine woman for over 30 years, throughout which no scandal has ever been connected to his name or position. Mr. Romney does not deliver double-talk. This is a man who looks you straight in the eye, speaks without hesitation, and delivers his own honest responses. He speaks from his heart with a confidence that comes from years of experience and knowledge of his subject.

We have looked long and hard through the corral of possible candidates. Mitt Romney is the only one we come back to again and again. We believe serious attention must be paid to him. We believe he possesses the political and emotional wherewithal to handle the impossibly difficult job of President of the United States in this impossible world.

©Simon Pedenko 2006

"Mitt: Good for the Family, Good for America"

by James Phillips

The offices of the White House, the halls of Congress, the chambers of the Supreme Court--these are not the places of most significance, the places of greatest influence on this country, as important and influential as they may be. Likewise, state capitols, town halls, and even classroom do not stand supreme in determining the direction and success of this country. The place, more than any other, that influences this nation, for good or bad, is the home because is houses this country's greatest resource and most powerful and fundamental institution--the family. In the end, America is a reflection of America's families; as goes the family, so, eventually, goes the nation.

We need leaders who understand this, and thus do not attempt to usurp the family's preeminence, nor undermine its influence for good. We need leaders who will use their office and power to advance programs and policies and laws that protect the family, and strengthen it. We need leaders who will create family-friendly government. We need leaders like Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney has stood against popular opinion in the Bay State, unflinchingly becoming this nation's most prominent and vocal defender of the sanctity of marriage and the need for American children to have both a mother and a father. He unhesitatingly opposed a bill that would have further reduced both the rights of parents and unborn children by allowing girls to obtain the "morning-after-pill" (a contraceptive that aborts an impregnated egg) starting as young as sixteen years old, without parental permission. He has taken a stand against the harvesting of human embryos in the debate on stem cell research. He has lifted the burden of heavy taxes and irresponsible government spending on the taxpaying families of Massachusetts, by turning a three billion dollar state deficit into a seven hundred million dollar surplus in just two years--without raising taxes. He has helped children have greater access to the education they need, through his laptop initiative and other programs, in order to be competitive in an increasingly global marketplace.

In short, Mitt Romney understands the concept of family-friendly government. He understands that the family must be placed before all other institutions and organizations in this nation if America is to remain the bastion of strength and freedom that it has become the last two centuries. He understands family, and we need more like him at every level of government in this country. Only then will the family be safe; only then will the family flourish, with the nation right on its heels.

Romney's Accuracy Concerning the Role of Nonprofits, December 7th, 2005

by Christine Yantis Hargrove, webmaster, M4M

Mitt Romney is once again going to bat for the expressive rights of religiously-connected nonprofit organizations by issuing rules exempting Catholic hospitals from the new emergency contraceptive laws. The history of nonprofits in the United States is full of fighting concerning whether nonprofits exist for public benefit or private expression, which is at the heart of this discussion. The right to associate for freedom of expression is generally assumed to be a natural right, but the major question involved here is whether or not this expression should be subsidized through tax exemption. (The consensus of tax history does treat tax exemption as a subsidy.) So, the question is not whether or not organizations may organize and express themselves, but whether or not they should be subsidized if they do not also serve the public benefit.

The two most prominent cases in the history of this battle are Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) and Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. v. James Dale. In the Bob Jones University case, the University lost its tax exemption status because of a rule denying matriculation to students advocating for or engaging in interracial dating or marriage. This court ruling essentially made compliance with federal discrimination laws necessary to maintain tax status. The natural fight to be fought was brewing in Boy Scouts v. Dale, in which an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist was an assistant scoutmaster of a New Jersey troop. He was removed from his position and sued based on discrimination against him, won in the State Supreme Court, and the federal Supreme Court took on the case. The Boy Scouts claimed right to define their morality (as a private organization), and Dale's lawyers felt strongly that the Boy Scouts were bound to public accommodation laws through the federal tax subsidy. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the State Supreme Court's ruling, claiming the Boy Scouts had a right to expressive behavior. Many more cases uphold and draw upon this conclusion, thus the emphasis on right to expression for nonprofits is dominant in legal attitudes.

From this short history lesson, we learn that nonprofits have the right to expression regardless of their compliance with federal discrimination laws. Mitt Romney is drawing upon this history in preparing to issue rules that would exempt Catholic hospitals from the new emergency contraception law. Emergency contraception, as we know, is considered a form of abortion by Catholic definition of the beginning of life. To force a Catholic hospital to provide abortion would strip these hospitals of their right to expressive behavior and force them to become an arm of the state and federal branches. Romney is right to seek this exemption, and we hope those who vote on these new rules understand the history of nonprofit legal taxation history and Romney's accuracy in issuing these rules.